Wednesday, April 25, 2012

At the heart of modern cosmology is a
mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create
the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of
science's biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the
mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.

Brian Greene is perhaps the best-known proponent of superstring
theory, the idea that minuscule strands of energy vibrating in a higher
dimensional space-time create every particle and force in the universe.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Scientists' greatest pleasure comes from theories that derive the solution to some deep puzzle from a small set of simple principles in a surprising way. These explanations are called "beautiful" or "elegant". Historical examples are Kepler's explanation of complex planetary motions as simple ellipses, Bohr's explanation of the periodic table of the elements in terms of electron shells, and Watson and Crick's double helix. Einstein famously said that he did not need experimental confirmation of his general theory of relativity because it "was so beautiful it had to be true." See:2012 : WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?

See which comments resonate with you. Some of my picks as I go through was by :

My Favorite Annoying Elegant Explanation: Quantum Theory .......General Relativity, in turn, is only a classical theory. It rests on a demonstrably false premise: that position and momentum can be known simultaneously. This may a good approximation for apples, planets, and galaxies: large objects, for which gravitational interactions tend to be much more important than for the tiny particles of the quantum world. But as a matter of principle, the theory is wrong. The seed is there. General Relativity cannot be the final word; it can only be an approximation to a more general Quantum Theory of Gravity.

But what about Quantum Mechanics itself? Where is its seed of destruction? Amazingly, it is not obvious that there is one. The very name of the great quest of theoretical physics—"quantizing General Relativity"—betrays an expectation that quantum theory will remain untouched by the unification we seek. String theory—in my view, by far the most successful, if incomplete, result of this quest—is strictly quantum mechanical, with no modifications whatsoever to the framework that was completed by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac. In fact, the mathematical rigidity of Quantum Mechanics makes it difficult to conceive of any modifications, whether or not they are called for by observation.

Yet, there are subtle hints that Quantum Mechanics, too, will suffer the fate of its predecessors. The most intriguing, in my mind, is the role of time. In Quantum Mechanics, time is an essential evolution parameter. But in General Relativity, time is just one aspect of spacetime, a concept that we know breaks down at singularities deep inside black holes. Where time no longer makes sense, it is hard to see how Quantum Mechanics could still reign. As Quantum Mechanics surely spells trouble for General Relativity, the existence of singularities suggests that General Relativity may also spell trouble for Quantum Mechanics. It will be fascinating to watch this battle play out.

Physical Reality Could Be Hugely More Extensive Than the Patch of Space and Time Traditionally Called 'The Universe' .....As an analogy (which I owe to Paul Davies) consider the form of snowflakes. Their ubiquitous six-fold symmetry is a direct consequence of the properties and shape of water molecules. But snowflakes display an immense variety of patterns because each is molded by its distinctive history and micro-environment: how each flake grows is sensitive to the fortuitous temperature and humidity changes during its growth.

If physicists achieved a fundamental theory, it would tell us which aspects of nature were direct consequences of the bedrock theory (just as the symmetrical template of snowflakes is due to the basic structure of a water molecule) and which cosmic numbers are (like the distinctive pattern of a particular snowflake) the outcome of environmental contingencies. .

An Explanation of Fundamental Particle Physics That Doesn't Exist Yet.....What is tetrahedral symmetry doing in the masses of neutrinos?! Nobody knows. But you can bet there will be a good explanation. It is likely that this explanation will come from mathematicians and physicists working closely with Lie groups. The most important lesson from the great success of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is that our universe is fundamentally geometric, and this idea has extended to the geometric description of known forces and particles using group theory. It seems natural that a complete explanation of the Standard Model, including why there are three generations of fermions and why they have the masses they do, will come from the geometry of group theory. This explanation does not yet exist, but when it does it will be deep, elegant, and beautiful—and it will be my favorite.

A Sphere....Most scientific facts are based on things that we cannot see with the naked eye or hear by our ears or feel by our hands. Many of them are described and guided by mathematical theory. In the end, it becomes difficult to distinguish a mathematical object from objects in nature.

One example is the concept of a sphere. Is the sphere part of nature or it is a mathematical artifact? That is difficult for a mathematician to say. Perhaps the abstract mathematical concept is actually a part of nature. And it is not surprising that this abstract concept actually describes nature quite accurately.

theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California,...

Gravity Is Curvature Of Spacetime … Or Is It?......We do not yet know the full shape of the quantum theory providing a complete accounting for gravity. We do have many clues, from studying the early quantum phase of cosmology, and ultrahigh energy collisions that produce black holes and their subsequent disintegrations into more elementary particles. We have hints that the theory draws on powerful principles of quantum information theory. And, we expect that in the end it has a simple beauty, mirroring the explanation of gravity-as-curvature, from an even more profound depth.

Albert Einstein Professor in Science, Departments of Physics and Astrophysical...

Quasi-elegance....As a young student first reading Weyl's book, crystallography seemed like the "ideal" of what one should be aiming for in science: elegant mathematics that provides a complete understanding of all physical possibilities. Ironically, many years later, I played a role in showing that my "ideal" was seriously flawed. In 1984, Dan Shechtman, Ilan Blech, Denis Gratias and John Cahn reported the discovery of a puzzling manmade alloy of aluminumand manganese with icosahedral symmetry. Icosahedral symmetry, with its six five-fold symmetry axes, is the most famous forbidden crystal symmetry. As luck would have it, Dov Levine (Technion) and I had been developing a hypothetical idea of a new form of solid that we dubbed quasicrystals, short for quasiperiodic crystals. (A quasiperiodic atomic arrangement means the atomic positions can be described by a sum of oscillatory functions whose frequencies have an irrational ratio.) We were inspired by a two-dimensional tiling invented by Sir Roger Penrose known as the Penrose tiling, comprised of two tiles arranged in a five-fold symmetric pattern. We showed that quasicrystals could exist in three dimensions and were not subject to the rules of crystallography. In fact, they could have any of the symmetries forbidden to crystals. Furthermore, we showed that the diffraction patterns predicted for icosahedral quasicrystals matched the Shechtman et al. observations. Since 1984, quasicrystals with other forbidden symmetries have been synthesized in the laboratory. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Dan Shechtman for his experimental breakthrough that changed our thinking about possible forms of matter. More recently, colleagues and I have found evidence that quasicrystals may have been among the first minerals to have formed in the solar system.

The crystallography I first encountered in Weyl's book, thought to be complete and immutable, turned out to be woefully incomplete, missing literally an uncountable number of possible symmetries for matter. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: While elegance and simplicity are often useful criteria for judging theories, they can sometimes mislead us into thinking we are right, when we are actually infinitely wrong.

The Higgs Mechanism......Fortunately that time has now come for the Higgs mechanism, or at least the simplest implementation which involves a particle called the Higgs boson. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva should have a definitive result on whether this particle exists within this coming year. The Higgs boson is one possible (and many think the most likely) consequence of the Higgs mechanism. Evidence last December pointed to a possible discovery, though more data is needed to know for sure. If confirmed, it will demonstrate that the Higgs mechanism is correct and furthermore tell us what is the underlying structure responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking and spreading "charge" throughout the vacuum. The Higgs boson would furthermore be a new type of particle (a fundamental boson for those versed in physics terminology) and would be in some sense a new type of force. Admittedly, this is all pretty subtle and esoteric. Yet I (and much of the theoretical physics community) find it beautiful, deep, and elegant.

Symmetry is great. But so is symmetry breaking. Over the years many aspects of particle physics were first considered ugly and then considered elegant. Subjectivity in science goes beyond communities to individual scientists. And even those scientists change their minds over time. That's why experiments are critical. As difficult as they are, results are much easier to pin down than the nature of beauty. A discovery of the Higgs boson will tell us how that is done when particles acquire their masses.

The True Rotational Symmetry of Space.....Although this excercise might seem no more than some fancy and painful basketball move, the fact that the true symmetry of space is rotation not once but twice has profound consequences for the nature of the physical world at its most microscopic level. It implies that 'balls' such as electrons, attached to a distant point by a flexible and deformable 'strings,' such as magnetic field lines, must be rotated around twice to return to their original configuration. Digging deeper, the two-fold rotational nature of spherical symmetry implies that two electrons, both spinning in the same direction, cannot be placed in the same place at the same time. This exclusion principle in turn underlies the stability of matter. If the true symmetry of space were rotating around only once, then all the atoms of your body would collapse into nothingness in a tiny fraction of a second. Fortunately, however, the true symmetry of space consists of rotating around twice, and your atoms are stable, a fact that should console you as you ice your shoulder.

Remember even though I pick some of these explanations does not mean I discount all others. It's just that some are picked for what they are saying in highlighted quotations. Lisi's statement on string theory is of course in my opinion far from the truth, yet, he captures a geometrical truth that I feel exists.:) You sort of get the jest of where I am coming from in the summation of Paul Steinhardt

Friday, January 13, 2012

One string theorist even went so far to conclude that a string theory calculation of Kaluza-Klein modes was the "smoking gun" that proved our theory was the same as the string theory that string theorists had already been studying.Warped Passages: Unraveling The Mysteries of the Universes Hidden Dimensions by Lisa Randall Pg 436, Para 4

Putting this together with what is real in our reality is of importance as well. While I may have my own metaphysical development and model building characteristics it was important that I learn the scientific one so that I could see where I may have been wrong in my own development scenario. Wrong in my own intuitions.

Some may of not been forced to question them-self with what it is that we have to ask of ourselves, as we delve into the world of the sciences and philosophies. To ask ourselves whether we had always been dealing with the truth of our getting to the heart of things.

A professor may have asked what it is exactly what I wanted out of all of this, and to him I have to relay a dream that has manifested because of his question.

In the dream I have been provided a forum for discussing my ideas.....but when it came to the time for speaking, my preparations, I felt lost as to where to begin. So it seems I have come to this point in time, as to "shit or get off the pot" as to what it is I wish to share of importance?

Giving these subjects the numbers of years since 2001, one would have thought had served my own internship, but alas I remain ever the student with no classification. Yet it is the developing of the concepts with what is real in the push to experiment as to find what the real world examples are showing as attributes in the experimental processes as they unfold.

In this example I’m going to map speed to the pitch of the note, length/postion to the duration of the note and number of turns/legs/puffs to the loudness of the note.See: How to make sound out of anything.

Who of us has the foresight to see where the process of the experiment had been developed to share an idea about what it was that we wanted to discover of nature? To see in the mind of the developers as to why the equipment has been superimposed from the schematics of theories to be tested as to discover what we may found in our model building.

In the above contour plot we see that L4 and L5 correspond to hilltops and L1, L2 and L3 correspond to saddles (i.e. points where the potential is curving up in one direction and down in the other). This suggests that satellites placed at the Lagrange points will have a tendency to wander off (try sitting a marble on top of a watermelon or on top of a real saddle and you get the idea). A detailed analysis (PDF link) confirms our expectations for L1, L2 and L3, but not for L4 and L5. When a satellite parked at L4 or L5 starts to roll off the hill it picks up speed. At this point the Coriolis force comes into play - the same force that causes hurricanes to spin up on the earth - and sends the satellite into a stable orbit around the Lagrange point. See: Space Travel and Propulsion Methods

I have to say who has not been touched as if we put on a pair of rose colored glasses to see the Lagrangian world as if the gravitons populated locations of influence. As if they were descriptive as overlapping nodes of sound as to support some acoustical idea about levitation? Satellites that travel through space or held in position as our space station is.

Thus it is as ones can see differently that I look upon the world as to discover what things we may not know of our own selves that we had missed in understanding our own physical evolution, that it is more then the matter with which we use and are made up of?

This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan. As the probe approaches the ground, both the pitch and intensity increase. Scientists will use intensity of the echoes to speculate about the nature of the surface. Radar echos from Titan's surface

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

There are certain advantages to the theoretical perspective that can best portray the concepts of the world they live in with what appears, however abstract, with the minds value of image solicitor impressionism which helps the minds state of acceptance. So it had to be explained first.

As if, looking at it from a larger perspective. If you stand outside of the image and see that it is capable of illuminating many angles of perspective. This helped us to see that it is derived from a much larger understanding then what is solidified to the everyday we live in.

For the artist it was a bold move to understanding that perspective could help us see Mona Lisa's smile as moving with us as we move around. So that was the challenge then was to appreciate the value of this artistic push into how we see as to understanding the road non- euclidean took was meet by people as well to culminate in a geometrical transitional form

Then, it quickly comes home to mind that maybe what is given, lets say in context of Lee Smolin's road to Quantum Gravity of the thing will help us quickly see the value of describing "the space of an interior" with what is happening on the screen/label.

It was necessary to see that the geometric used here were helping to shape perspective around not only "time travel" but a means to an end to use mathematical perspective to actually mean something in relation to understanding our world. A way to describe abstract concepts that were correlated with the progression of those mathematics. Klein's ordering of geometries then take on a new meaning as we move deep into the world we all know and love.

I quickly divert the attention to the world of Thomas Banchoff because it is an extraordinary move from all that we know is safe. It is not lost to some computer animator world that one engages loses the self in the process? It is also to show that what Lee Smolin tried to distance himself from, was in fact seeking to find itself understood in this way. Concurrent agreement that theoretics was trying to arrive at a consensus of different approaches saying the same thing?

Monte Carlo simulation methods are especially useful in studying systems with a large number of coupled degrees of freedom, such as fluids, disordered materials, strongly coupled solids, and cellular structures (see cellular Potts model). More broadly, Monte Carlo methods are useful for modeling phenomena with significant uncertainty in inputs, such as the calculation of riskdefinite integrals, particularly multidimensional integrals with complicated boundary conditions. It is a widely successful method in risk analysis when compared with alternative methods or human intuition. When Monte Carlo simulations have been applied in space exploration and oil exploration, actual observations of failures, cost overruns and schedule overruns are routinely better predicted by the simulations than by human intuition or alternative "soft" methods.[2]

For me it had to make some sense such transference from that artistic impressionism help to direct the mind to the ways and means of understanding quantum gravity was being inspected in terms of Monte Carlo methods to understanding. These had a surface value in my mind to an accumulate acceptance of the geometry and methods used to model this understanding.

So you understand now how we arrived at an interpretation of the value of lets say Dyson's opinion about how we might view Riemann's Hypothesis?

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, molecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing See:DNA computing

Today I’m pleased to announce that we have a guest post from a very distinguished colleague of mine, Len Adleman. Len is best known as the “A” in RSA and the inventor of DNA-computing. He is a Turing Award laureate. However, he considers himself “a rank amateur” (his words!) as a physicist.

Len Adleman-For a long time, physicists have struggled with perplexing “meta-questions” (my phrase): Does God play dice with the universe? Does a theory of everything exist? Do parallel universes exist? As the physics community is acutely aware, these are extremely difficult questions and one may despair of ever finding meaningful answers. The mathematical community has had its own meta-questions that are no less daunting: What is “truth”? Do infinitesimals exist? Is there a single set of axioms from which all of mathematics can be derived? In what many consider to be on the short list of great intellectual achievements, Frege, Russell, Tarski, Turing, Godel, and other logicians were able to clear away the fog and sort these questions out. The framework they created, mathematical logic, has put a foundation under mathematics, provided great insights and profound results. After many years of consideration, I have come to believe that mathematical logic, suitably extended and modified (perhaps to include complexity theoretic ideas), has the potential to provide the same benefits to physics. In the following remarks, I will explore this possibility.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

You should know that that the names of the Bee people have their names protected, to protect the community at large. Some larger human species, like to use the benefits of this society, without recognizing the constructive efforts that goes into this elixir Production.

Many times people have used Ant world to illustrate their ideas, but the time has come, that the relationship to perspective dynamics at that level should think about the vast literature of Bee people.

One should not think these people have been disassociated from reality, and that it has only been our ignorance of the economics and flight patterns, that we failed to see the dynamical community that bee propagation goes through, in order to continue it's rich development. The elixir production is coming out of that community.

Flower pollination is a interesting thing having considered the world that the Bee people live in. After all, the dynamics and travel used, one could not help being enamoured with the naturalness with which one may try to reproduce in human mechanistic movement, that the Bee people live and breathe.

Humanistic intelligences is a larger format, to what they do in that Bee community?

Cell construction provides for the further propagation of the community, but no where do the Bee people give the particulates of the cell construction? Humanistic intelligences only see the community with regards to the Bee movements :)The Bee people have a greater depth to what is seen.

Observing the community at large, the Bee people have much more to present then thinking just in the way they work. Who is Navier Stokes of the humanistic intelligences to think only he could reveal anomalistic perception in the nature of viscosity, not to think there is relativistic conditions that the Bee people bring to reductionism views in physics?

So I've taken a different tack here. If it is so hard for the community at large to comprehend that extra dimensional thinking then there has to be some way in which we as lay people can envision the acrobatics of a busy bee and their flight plans? What the community is all about. Who is doing what?

The Bee people had graduated from the world of the ant people, jsut by their evolutionary timeline. They were "much more visionary" then the ant people. Because they could leave their three dimensional world of the table top, and pop into ant world's frame of reference. Ant people were never the wiser. Just that, Bee people existed.

Brane theory development needed a boost from the Bee people. Not only now do we understand the "dynamical thinking that goes with the Bee's flight patterns," we are now thinking, hey, "can these things apply" to the current solutions the humanistic intelligences persevere to unfold in their space travels?

Not just "our waist lines" as some might think in regards to "lensing" and the circles we apply in "computerize efforts." The range of territory of the Bee's community is well considered?

Sunday, March 25, 2007

I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

It is sometimes important to know what race of rebels had been raised to realize that such a revolution in the making had started from a place of thinking that many others began to think about as well?

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"

It is important to know where such models began to influence the idea to generate theoretical model for an apprehension of how we view this universe? Given the study at hand here are the following people for consideration.

So we have to take stock of the movements that change democratic societies. To have found such governments will change and fall according to the plight of it's citizens in science. As it goes with "theoretical positions?"

Working to understand the development of the model in consideration was needed in order for one to understand why Lee Smolin methodology to work science from a historical perspective is one I favour as well. It is sometimes necessary to list these developmental phases in order to get to a position to speak with authority. Find that "with certainty" we can make certain comments? Find, we must be confronted again, to say, any progress will go from There.

So we know where the idea of science wars began do we not? What instigates conflict as a healthy perspective to progress of the sciences. We will see the story unfold within this blog.

For some reason people might of thought my views were just held to Lee Smolin and the work that I had been accumulating with regards to his views of the Universe. While I had shown the cover of his book countless times, I would like to say that I have accumulated "other books," like those of Brian Greene as well.

Does this make me an expert on the subject in question or what ever Lee Smolin has written? Of course not.

But the work I have been doing, has not been limited to what the authors themself have given to the public in their outreach writing books. I have been at this a few years now, so I would like people to think this is not just a jaunt of journalism, that has been given to the public in it's books but has been a labour of love to understand my place in the universe.

Thanks Q9 for the link to "Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy." I was going to posted it the day when you gave it to me, but instead seeing that Clifford of Asymptotia had it (same day), I thought I wouldn't. But as fate has it I must.

Once you get this view of the gravitational connection between everything, the form of graviton, you get this preview of the bulk and what lensing may mean. It is hard not to think of "dimensional perspectives in relation to the energy" describing the particles of science in some way. Witten below in his "Strings Unravel" lets you know what string theory has accomplished.

It's alway nice having one's own blog and nice that I can retained my dignity under the name of Plato. It keeps my personal life from being treated with disrespect at the whim of the stroke of a delete key. Of course I am willing to take my lumps understanding such a role as "older student." After being expose to the exchange between people in the tribe, it's thinking can do all kinds of damage to each other? But I would like to think that all sides remain cool to positions they hold in society

Out of all this uncertainty that exists at the level with which we think about in "those dimensions" what value any constructive diagram if it did not lead you to the understanding of the building blocks that a condense matter theorist may describe as manifesting in our reality?

Clifford is defending his position on how Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have assigned a "perspective view" to string theory as a modelled approach. As a theoretical discovery of science, Clifford from my view, had to show that this process is still unfolding and that any quick decision as to giving String theory such a final vote of opinion from Lee Smolin was premature. I have supported Clifford in this view because of where we had been historically in the past years that the formulation of string theory has been given.

While Clifford's book I do not have, I understand that the "second revolution" was necessary to help us move to consider where string theory was to take us. It was progressing in the theoretics as a model to help us see science assuming the ways in which such models adjust us to possible new views in science. Clifford may not of liked the implication of a Grokking of a kind that would refer to consuming model approaches and then becoming what you eat?

So of course entertaining the idea of a "theory of everything" leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, and having them to reason that it is the naivity of such a thought, that I immediately felt insulted. Clifford saids,"this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all" and may have been the case for those less then spending the time and effort, would have probably been insulted as I was. I of course came to recognize the positive aspect of the second position Clifford assumes.

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

Anyway there are positions that we can take when we look back and reassess everything that we have been doing in reading the public outreach, like so called "bench marks" to see if such progressions still have have a evolutionary way to go.

So what shall we use to measure what had first seem so abstract in Susskind's mind as a "rubber band," or the start of Veneziano views on such strings at inception? We've come a long way.

Something that I perceived back in 2004 help to "shape my views on the way I speak" "today" allows for us to consider that strings take it's rightful place within the building blocks of matter, that following Robert Laughlins lead, it was that we shifted our times from the first three seconds of Steven Weinberg, to the "First three Microseconds" of strings within the process of the unfolding universe.

While Laughlin may have not seen the continued relevance of particle reductionism it was leading to some amazing insights. I now wonder now, if held to the comparisons of this superfluid, how it would have appealed to him? I think Witten in last plate above recognized what had to be done.

Friday, February 23, 2007

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

One of my greatest "aha moments" came when I realized Non-euclidean geometries. I had to travel the history first with Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri, Bolya and Lobachevsky, for this to make an impression, and I can safely say, that learning of Gauss and Riemann, I was truly impressed.

Einstein had to include that "extra dimension of time." Greater then, or less then, 180 degrees and we know "this triangle" can take on some funny shapes when you apply them "to surfaces" that are doing funny things.?:)

Let me just say that "it is not the fact that any drinking could have held the mind" of the person, but when they absentmindedly threw their car keys. The "point is" that if the light shines only so far, what conclusion should we live with?

Moving to the Fifth

So of course whatever real estate you are buying, make sure the light is shining on what your willing to purchase? Is this not a good lesson to learn?

Moving any idea to a fifth dimension I thought was important in relation to seeing what Einstein had done. See further: Concepts of the Fifth Dimension. I illustrate more ways in which we may see that has not been seen for most could have helped the mind see how this is accomplished in current day geometric methods.

Why was this thought "wrong" when one may of thought to include "gravity and light" together, after the conclusion of spacetime's 3+1? Gravity. What Had Maxwell done? What Had Riemann done?

You knew "the perfect symmetry" had to be reduced to General Relativity?

Saturday, November 11, 2006

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

It seems then that the very statement of "Unification," the "Theory of everything," does not seem so far fetched as we look at the implications of what comes after. What comes from the knowledge, extended.

I was starting to loose hope here in the efforts of blogging as well, and was thinking that the time had come to a end. But "these questions" help to fuel the understanding that I had gained by giving time to "what work" has been put out there by scientists?

To think scientists would close up shop to their elite view, would seem disastrous to me, because of the leading perspective of what the physics means along side of that math.

We need to know what is "experimentally going" on so that we can also judge what theoretical models are doing for us as we extend this knowledge gained.

I gave a few views in environmental sciences in terms of the cosmic relation as well as what Gr was being introduced using time clocks and such, for views of the topographical understanding of earth from a fluidness point of view.

Now join the "cloud cover" along side of particle collisions sources, and have we learn anything that we didn't know before, or has this push new light onto what we now see of earth, as it's placed in the cosmological frontier?

So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.

Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?

Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

Attributes of the Superfluids

Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.

So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

Let's move on here, as I have.

If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

So here we are.

I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?